Show simple item record

Protected-Area Monitoring Dilemmas: a New Tool to Assess Success

dc.contributor.authorWalker, Kendra L.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T20:40:36Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T20:40:36Z
dc.date.issued2009-10en_US
dc.identifier.citationWALKER, KENDRA L. (2009). "Protected-Area Monitoring Dilemmas: a New Tool to Assess Success." Conservation Biology 23(5): 1294-1303. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73781>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0888-8892en_US
dc.identifier.issn1523-1739en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73781
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=19765040&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractUnderstanding factors that influence the success of protected areas in curbing unsustainable resource consumption is essential for determining best management strategies and allocating limited resources to those projects most likely to succeed. I used a law-enforcement and monitoring game-theory model from the political science literature to identify three key variables useful in predicting the success of a protected area: costs of monitoring for rule breakers, benefits of catching a rule breaker, and probability of catching a rule breaker if monitoring. Although assigning exact values for each of these variables was difficult, the variables had a strong predictive capacity even when coded as coarse ordinal values. A model in which such values were used correctly predicted the outcome of 88 of 116 protected areas sampled from the peer-reviewed literature. The model identified a critical zone of common mismatch between protected-area circumstances and management policies. In situations where the costs of monitoring were greater than the product of the probability of catching a rule breaker and the benefit of doing so, conservation was unlikely to succeed. Control of illegal use of protected resources was reported in only 8% of such cases, regardless of strategies to motivate potential users to cooperate with conservation. My model does not prescribe a best management policy for conserving natural resources; rather, it can be used as a tool to help predict whether a proposed management policy will likely succeed in a given situation.en_US
dc.format.extent142632 bytes
dc.format.extent66074 bytes
dc.format.extent666849 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Incen_US
dc.rights©2009, Society for Conservation Biologyen_US
dc.subject.otherCommunity-based Conservationen_US
dc.subject.otherGame Theoryen_US
dc.subject.otherMonitoringen_US
dc.subject.otherNational Parksen_US
dc.subject.otherProtected Areasen_US
dc.subject.otherRule Enforcementen_US
dc.subject.otherAplicaciÓN De Reglasen_US
dc.subject.otherÁReas Protegidasen_US
dc.subject.otherConservaciÓN Basada En Comunidadesen_US
dc.subject.otherMonitoreoen_US
dc.subject.otherParques Nacionalesen_US
dc.subject.otherTeorÍA De Juegosen_US
dc.titleProtected-Area Monitoring Dilemmas: a New Tool to Assess Successen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationum† University of Michigan School of Natural Resources & Environment, Dana Building, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041, U.S.A., email klwalker@umich.eduen_US
dc.identifier.pmid19765040en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73781/1/COBI_1203_sm_AppendixS2.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73781/2/COBI_1203_sm_AppendixS1.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73781/3/j.1523-1739.2009.01203.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01203.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceConservation Biologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAgrawal, A., and A. Chhatre. 2006. Explaining success on the commons: community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Development 34: 149 – 166.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAgrawal, A., and C. C. Gibson. 2001. The role of community in natural resource conservation. 1 – 31 in A. Agrawal and C. C. Gibson, editors. Communities and the environment: ethnicity, gender, and the State in community-based conservation. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAgrawal, A., and S. Goyal. 2001. Group size and collective action: third-party monitoring in common-pool resources. Comparative Political Studies 34: 63 – 93.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerkes, F. 2006. From community-based resource management to complex systems: the scale issue and marine commons. Ecology and Society 11: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art45/.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBorgerhoff Mulder, M. 2007. Interdisciplinary collaboration: painting a brighter picture and identifying the real problem. Conservation Biology 21: 903 – 904.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoyd, R., and P. J. Richerson. 1992. Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethology and Sociobiology 13: 171 – 195.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrooks, J. S., M. A. Franzen, C. M. Holmes, M. N. Grote, and M. B. Mulder. 2006. Testing hypotheses for the success of different conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 20: 1528 – 1538.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBruner, A. G., R. E. Gullison, R. E. Rice, and G. Fonseca. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291: 125 – 128.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChhatre, A., and A. Agrawal. 2008. Forest commons and local enforcement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 13286 – 13291.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCostanza, R., and M. Ruth. 2001. Dynamic systems modeling. Pages 21 – 29 in R. Costanza, B. S. Low, E. Ostrom, and J. A. Wilson, editors. Institutions, ecosystems, and sustainability. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDobson, A., and L. Lynes. 2008. How does poaching affect the size of national parks? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23: 177 – 180.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFerraro, P. J., and S. K. Pattanayak. 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. Public Library of Science Biology 4: 482 – 488.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGibson, C. C., J. T. Williams, and E. Ostrom. 2005. Local enforcement and better forests. World Development 33: 273 – 284.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHayes, T., and E. Ostrom. 2005. Conserving the world's forests: are protected areas the only way? Indiana Law Review 38: 595 – 617.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHayes, T. M. 2006. Parks, people, and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. World Development 34: 2064 – 2075.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHockings, M. 2003. Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. Bioscience 53: 823 – 832.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoller, M. J. 1991. Fighting pollution when decisions are strategic. Public Choice 76: 347 – 356.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJames, A., K. J. Gaston, and A. Balmford. 2001. Can we afford to conserve biodiversity? BioScience 51: 43 – 52.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKiyonari, T., and P. Barclay. 2008. Cooperation in social dilemmas: free riding may be thwarted by second-order reward rather than by punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95: 826 – 842.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeader-Williams, N., and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 1993. Policies for the enforcement of wildlife Laws: the balance between detection and penalties in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Conservation Biology 7: 611 – 619.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMesterton-Gibbons, M., and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 1998. On the strategic stability of monitoring: implications for cooperative wildlife management programmes in Africa. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 265: 1237 – 1244.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMolnar, A., S. J. Scherr, and A. Khare. 2004. Who conserves the world's forests? Community-driven strategies to protect forests and respect rights. Forest Trends, Washington, D.C.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNagendra, H. 2008. Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land cover clearing. Ambio 37: 330 – 336.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNaidoo, R., A. Balmford, P. J. Ferraro, S. Polasky, T. H. Ricketts, and M. Rouget. 2006. Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 681 – 687.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOliver, P. 1980. Rewards and punishments as selective incentives for collective action: theoretical investigations. American Journal of Sociology 85: 1356 – 1375.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOstrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 15181 – 15187.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOstrom, E., R. Gardner, and J. Walker 1994. Rules, games, & common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOstrom, E., and H. Nagendra. 2006. Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103: 19224 – 19231.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStern, P. C., T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, E. Ostrom, and S. Stonich. 2002. Knowledge and questions after 15 years of research. Pages 445 – 486 in E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, and E. U. Weber, editors. The drama of the commons. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTsebelis, G. 1989. The abuse of probability in political analysis: the Robinson Crusoe fallacy. The American Political Science Review 83: 77 – 91.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWeissing, F. J., and E. Ostrom. 2000. Irrigation institutions and the games irrigators play: rule enforcement on government-and-farmer-managed systems. Pages 366 – 398 in M. D. McGinnis, editor. Polycentric Games and Institutions. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2004. Are protected areas working? An analysis of forest protected areas by WWF. WWF International, Switzerland.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.